There's a retail and leisure park in an adjacent town. It has a supermarket, DIY store, furniture store, cinema, restaurant and bowling alley.

A local taxi firm charges £7.50 each way (total £15) if you go there to shop, and for this example this price is not dependent on night or day.

The taxi firm also sells a combined ticket for travel and entertainment. This ticket is £40 and is pre-paid for the journey and for viewing one film or eating one meal or taking part in one bowling session.

Having paid £40 for the ticket and knowing the travel costs £15, you might have a reasonable expectation that each of the entertainment options costs £25.

However, if you visit the park using some other form of transport, you'll find that the cinema is £10, the meal is £20 and the bowling is £15.

You have now discovered the taxi firm is effectively charging you £30 for the journey if you go to the cinema, £20 for the journey if you go for a meal and £25 for the journey if you go bowling.

This is similar to the situation you might find with mobile call pricing for 0844 numbers where a mobile network charges, for example, 40p/min for all 0844 calls irrespective of whether the underlying Service Charge is 2p/min or 7p/min. The other parallel would be if that same mobile network charged, say, only 20p/min for calls to 01, 02 and 03 numbers.

The "unbundled tariff" as applied to the "night out" deal would require the taxi firm to charge you the same £15 for every journey irrespective of which part of the venue you are visiting (the Access Charge) and the correct £10 for the cinema, £20 for the meal and £15 for the bowling (the Service Charge) and each party clearly states their part of the charge.

Is that any more clear?

The BBC are running with it and offer an explanation of what it means.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25345157

Shame we have to wait another 17 months for it to be implemented.

When it says callers may also be told by a recorded message is this up to the provider of the ngn ?

The Service Charge is capped. Up to 7p/min on 084 numbers. Up to 13p/min on 087 numbers.

The Service Charge depends on the first six digits of the phone number called.

The Access Charge is open to competition between call providers to keep it low.

See also: http://tinyurl.com/SN1384676248c34

bigjohn wrote on Dec 12^th, 2013 at 5:37pm:

Surely this part of the BBC report is wrong:

Quote:

This suggests some change in the way 03 numbers are treated, and I can't see that in the Ofcom report.

I know with Mobile networks or at least my mobile network (O2) that they advise in a pre call announcement when you try and call an 0800 number that they charge for it..

I would therefore assume it's possible to set up a similar announcement for ALL providers, both landline and mobile when calling a "non inclusive" call... to advise of the charge..

bigjohn wrote on Dec 13^th, 2013 at 3:18am:


Oh excellent news.... including Transport.. so that's National Rail Enquiries having to change, either they will finally amend their 0845 number to 0345 or use an 020 number.  Plus all the Rail Operators (TOC's) will have to change theirs... I wonder if Traveline will have to amend their's... as that is technically transport related and is a huge rip off...

We shall see what progress is made... 

I wonder if telecoms companies will be allowed to exclude any 0800 numbers from the tariff free calls from mobiles rule, e.g. call through numbers from indirect phone call providers. It could be interesting for PAYG mobile customers being able to bypass the high call charges - a single top-up could last for many years with just an occasional chargeable call to keep the SIM account active.

This contribution, which originally stated …
Quote:

has now been amended in the light of a later contribution.

---

Graham wrote on Dec 15^th, 2013 at 1:26pm:

Indirect access 080 numbers would be unlikely to be of benefit to mobile users at present. The first point is addressing a modest extension to the "call through" market that already exists on other types of number, access to which may be blocked by some providers.

This point does however draw attention to a wider issue, as covered by the second point. The use of free SIMs is coming under attack from a quite different direction. At present, the absence of any "line rental" charge on mobiles is covered by high termination rates on incoming calls. These are in the course of being reduced - a vital factor in relation to making calls to 080 numbers free to caller, but without placing excessive costs on those using 080 numbers.


Notwithstanding the possibility of calling only 080 numbers, there are many free SIM PAYG users who survive on the basis of getting people to call them. When the mobile providers lose the significant income from these calls, through the high termination rates, the question of people who currently get "something for nothing" may have to be addressed.

This is a tricky issue. The present arrangement is essentially unfair, but it does enable many kids and those who are financially pressured to have access to the telephone network. It would be hard to argue against a reasonable monthly charge for maintaining a network connection, but this would be seen as most unwelcome, especially given the nature of those who would be most affected.

Although the reduction in the termination charges is already happening, through a phased arrangement, we have yet to see any significant effects (apart from its contribution to enabling prohibition of charges for calls to 080 numbers). In time, we will expect to see landline providers treating calls to landlines and mobiles in the same way. Whilst mobile operators appear to have absorbed their loss of income through the initial phases of the rate reductions, one has to expect that they will react once it essentially dries up altogether.

(Perhaps any further discussion of this issue belongs in a new thread.)